Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Subject: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Food Security Strategies in Urban and Peri-Urban Areas

Dear Colleagues,

I write to contribute to our ongoing dialogue on the draft report focusing on food security in urban and peri-urban areas. The draft is commendably structured and addresses many interrelated issues essential for advancing our understanding and action in this critical area. However, I wish to draw attention to several fundamental aspects, informed by our discussions and insights from initiatives like the Farafena Mali business plan, that could further enhance our approach.

1. Enabling Self-Upliftment Rather than Empowering: 

The concept of empowerment, often well-intentioned, can unwittingly imply a position of granting power from a place of superiority. Instead, our approach should be about dismantling systemic barriers that hinder the self-upliftment of individuals at the 'base of the pyramid'. This shift in perspective respects the inherent capacities and agency of communities and individuals, recognizing their right and ability to lead their transformation.

2. Eliminating Paternalism and Condescension: 

It is vital to critically examine our processes, assumptions, and attitudes to eliminate any form of superiority, condescension, or paternalism. This requires a deep reflection on the language and notions we use, such as "high-level experts" and traditional educational hierarchies, which may inadvertently perpetuate elitist perspectives. We must strive for a more inclusive and egalitarian approach that values diverse voices and experiences.

3. Redefining 'High-Level Expertise: 

The traditional definition of 'high-level experts' often relies heavily upon historical knowledge and conventional educational backgrounds, potentially overlooking the rich, context-specific insights that local experts hold. We must broaden our definition of expertise to include local, grassroots knowledge that is intimately connected to the lived experiences and challenges of urban and peri-urban communities. This shift will encourage innovative, disruptive solutions grounded in local realities, moving away from outdated models that may not adequately address current and future challenges.

4. Challenging Entrenched Intermediaries and Structures*: 

It is crucial that we critically examine and openly question the roles of both anonymous and known intermediaries that dominate commercial food chains, regulatory frameworks, and financial flows. We should courageously identify and dismantle outdated structures that perpetuate inequity and inefficiency, making way for new paradigms that promote fairness and inclusivity. This transformation requires boldness in addressing entrenched power dynamics and the willingness to discard systems that no longer serve the collective good.

5. Implementing a Radically Transparent Global Platform: 

The adoption of an open-source, universally accessible, and mandatory digital platform based on blockchain technology is imperative. Such a platform will ensure radical transparency and traceability, offering all stakeholders real-time access to 'immutable truth'. This level of transparency is essential for dismantling the opacity that allows current power brokers and intermediaries to resist meaningful change. By ensuring accountability and openness at every level, we pave the way for the successful implementation of the transformative actions outlined in the draft report.

While the draft report provides a robust framework for addressing food security in urban and peri-urban areas, these additional considerations aim to deepen our commitment to a truly inclusive, equitable, and transformative approach. By embracing these principles, we can ensure that our strategies are not only well-informed and forward-thinking but also grounded in the realities and aspirations of those most affected by our work.

Best regards,

Kevin Wilson 

1. The V0 draft introduces a conceptual framework informed by key principles established in previous HLPE-FSN reports (HLPE, 2017; HLPE, 2020).

After a first reading, the conceptual framework seems adequate, comprehensive and broad enough to have a global perspective towards the objectives of the report. However, I found some elements where I believe the perspective tends to weaken, in my opinion:

• When addressing the question of “urban foodsheds” it seems to me to be an incomplete perspective, given that urban food systems are supplied in a deregulated global framework and with presence of large food corporations and supermarket chains. A first quantitative approach to this phenomenon could be done analyzing food import data from different countries and regions (based on food import information from faostat), as well as the market share of supermarket chains (modern channel) in each of the countries (based on information from market consultations). The tendency on each of the food sectors to concentrate on fewer and fewer players, configuring concentrated markets, leads to a company supplying all cities in a country, regardless of where its production is located. Increases in the scale of transportation have made it possible to “reduce distances” and dismantle supply basins or foodsheds;
• Urban areas are in many times metropolitan areas comprises by different government levels, especially in the biggest cities, therefore usually national policies does not have much impact on the urban and peri-urban food systems. National policies usually deals with some issues that affect food systems (external trade, regulations, competition policies, etc.) local policies usually deals with transportation, retail, wholesale, there is a more accurate implication on local policies, rather than in national policies for urban and peri-urban food systems in my opinion.

3. Are the trends/variables/elements identified in the draft report the key ones to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? If not, which other elements should be considered?

The contrast/comparison between formal-modern vs informal-traditional food systems is a key aspect that I believe that might be strengthen. Except the European countries, and the US, among others, that rely around 70-80% on the modern retail channel, all the countries will rely on mix systems, in different amounts. In this sense, I suggest to update the Figure 4.2, particularly to capture an overview in the post COVID-19 context. Which kind of system provides a more accurate articulation of the supply towards food security in different sizes of cities? There are several trade-offs to explore that are key aspects for the report, I believe. One very complex to approach and crucial for food supply is scale of operation, that affect logistics, retailing and wholesaling offering important benefits, especially in big urban areas. Public infrastrucutre for retail and wholesale allows the increase of scale of operation, preserving competition. On the contrast, this kind of systems affects competition and the integration of SMEs and small farmers, among other relevant issues. In this sense, as a way to explore strategies in mix systems, I believe that is important to stress that informal markets when are permanent and have fix structures are able to compete with supermarkets, relying in the most valuable asset that is the physical presence of stores in the cities.

Regarding the “supermarketization” of food retail in cities, I would add that supermarket companies are transforming their operation developing stores that compete with convenience stores. Therefore, they increase their scale of operation with different type of stores, affecting competition. This is called omni-channel strategy by the supermarket sector, and I believe the best example to understand it is the through the recent trajectory of the French company Carrefour. In this sense, I suggest to consider analyzing both chapters 4.3.3. and 4.3.4. as an integrated chapter that focus on large scale retailing operators, beside the type of stores they have.

4. Is there additional quantitative or qualitative data that should be included?

As mentioned before, an analysis of food imports could bring a clear idea on the foodshed of the different urban areas in different countries. Also, global supermarket market data could anchored the role of the main global actor across each country.

To clarify and emphasize the links between urbanization processes and food systems (page 25) you could update the kind of analysis that is presented on the Appendix 1 (page 23) of the “Background paper by the OECD Secretariat” of the 2015 Latin American Competition Forum. Session III - Competition Issues in the Groceries Sector: Focus on Conduct (link). This kind of analysis establishes a clear pattern where supermarket chains -as the main retail global actor- expand in relation with the urbanization rate, income and middle-class size in each country, configuring urban food systems and food security.

I´ve explored the supermarket operation in several publications, especially the development of the omni-channel strategy in the Buenos Aires Metropolitan, Argentina, and the territorial expansion and accesibility due to urban income and density, it´s accesible on this link.

5. Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?

This statement could be revised: “Relatedly, food systems in much of the Global South have been shaped by policy prescriptions that orient them towards production for export and reliance on imports, which undermines the potential of local production for local consumption. This raises important questions addressed in the report about the power of individual cities to shape their food systems in the context of global trade regimes.” (pag. 16)

Those countries oriented towards food production and exports are more intensively linked to the dynamic of the global markets, mostly in terms of food prices, affecting food security. Food import countries are more likely due to limitations on the amount of land, inputs, etc.

Check citacions:

• Clapp for instance is mentioned with three different years (2021, 2022, and 2023) and in the bibliography it´s only included Clapp, J., Moseley, W. G., Burlingame, B., & Termine, P. (2022). Viewpoint: The case for a six-dimensional food security framework. Food Policy, 106, 102164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102164
• Kloppenberg et al., 1996 is note included in the bibliography
• Ferreyra and Roberts, 2018 is note included in the bibliography

6. Could you suggest case studies and success stories from countries that were able to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? In particular, the HLPE-FSN would seek contributions on:

I would suggest exploring the experience and results of the Grocery Code Adjudicator, the supermarket regulation from the UK, and those policies towards developing wholesale and retail public markets, potentially the south european experiences (Spain, France, Portugal)

Dear editorial team, 

Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this process. The below reflections and inputs are provided on behalf of the Nutrition in City Ecosystems (NICE) project that is supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and implemented in 2 secondary cities in each of the countries Bangladesh, Kenya and Rwanda, with support of a Swiss public private partnership. 

Do you find the proposed framework effective to highlight and discuss the key issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems?

We appreciate the well-structured, effective framework proposed in the V0 draft, but wonder about the possibility to further introduce the value chain dimensions such as production, processing, transportation, consumption, but also governance into the framework. While they are deeply discussed in the V0 draft, they are, as to our understanding, not sufficiently reflected in the framework per se.

We particularly appreciate the strong (and visual) importance given to urban contexts and listing of factors influencing the urban context as we understand the sub-national (city) level as a key driver and potential entry point for sustainable food system transformation and tackling of malnutrition. This potential as an entry point could be further emphasized even though already strongly mentioned in the current V0 draft.

Is this a useful conceptual framework to provide practical guidance for policymakers?

See above, a more stringent expression of the different activity fields where the different variables of the framework have to be reflected in within the value chain, might make the framework better understandable for policymakers.

Can you offer suggestions for examples to illustrate and facilitate the operationalization of the conceptual framework to address issues relevant for FSN?

While literature remains scarce, we are convinced that (emerging) literature discussing the successes of food policy councils as for example in Bambilor, Senegal, could further illustrate and facilitation of the operationalization of the conceptual framework.

A report by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and the city of Zurich assessing the food flows in Zurich, Switzerland, is a step to better understand Urban- Peri-Urban food systems in line with the proposed framework, but without fully implementing derived activities: Landert, J.; Vukotic, F.; Halter, L.; Wolfgramm, B.; Schleiffer, M.; Haupt, C.; Moschitz, H, 2021: Was isst Zürich? Handlungsspielräume auf lokaler Ebene zur Förderung einer nachhaltigen Ernährung, Schlussbericht (in German).

The report adopts the broader definition of food security (proposed by the HLPE-FSN in 2020), which includes six dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability.

Does the V0 draft cover sufficiently the implications of this broader definition in U-PU food systems?

The V0 draft prominently relays on the six dimensions of food security and strongly connects them to the Urban-Peri-Urban (U-PU) food system principles, including, within the conceptual framework. Further elaboration of the empowering à agency match and principle / dimension in the context of U-PU might be helpful.

Are the trends/variables/elements identified in the draft report the key ones to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? If not, which other elements should be considered?

Are there any other issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft report?

We acknowledge the broad inclusiveness of the V0 draft, discussing principles from a) productive and prosperous, b) generative, c) equitable, d) healthy & nutritious, e) diverse & resilient, and f) empowering in detail and without leaving out any of the steps in the value chains. We would appreciate further discussion and guidance on how to deal with imports into the U-PU food system that make up an important share in several contexts. Digitalization and its potential could be another important topic to quickly mention in this context.

Furthermore, we do feel (policies that address) poverty and inequality, build resilience and social inclusion and foster sustainable livelihoods, including through nutrition supported social assistance programs are not sufficiently addressed in the current V0 draft. Furthermore, for us the fact that in many secondary cities in LMIC, most citizens are still having access to farmland (even if only a few acres) and are still partly self-sustaining might be further highlighted in the report.

Are topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?

See above, we acknowledge the distribution of the topics in the V0 draft, particularly the high importance given to food systems governance incl. food policy councils and city networks. The concept of food system champions and respective discussion could further supplement these sections.

While the different trading channels such as market, street vendors, supermarkets are adequately discussed we would recommend to also include a big picture on food produce trade in U-PU areas per se, including broader discussion of import / export and related fields.

Is there additional quantitative or qualitative data that should be included?

Are there other references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, which should be considered?

We recommend to expand the section on territorial markets and their societal importance and produce flows (incl. how often produce changes hands to reach city markets and how they are competing with the fresh produce) by further discussing market mechanisms and interactions that could be key, incl. as for example per the following literature:

Nordhagen S., Lee J., Monterrosa E., Onuigbo-Chatta N., Okoruva A., Lambertini E., and Pelto GH (2023). Where supply and demand meet: how consumer and vendor interactions create a market, a Nigerian example. Food Security https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-023-01397-x

FAO. 2023. Mapping of territorial markets - Methodology and guidelines for participatory data collection. 3rd ed., Rome: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb9484en AND respective country reports

Furthermore, we recommend to introduce a short section on the potential of digitalization into the report, e.g. as per:

Speich C., Pannatier M., Berlin R., Freymond M., Monroy-Gomez J., Chigemezu Nwokoro C. et al. (2023). The potential of digital tools to foster production, and thus availability, of healthy diets for city dwellers in secondary cities. E3S Web of Conferences 418; https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202341805001

Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?

We would like to highlight that several sections in chapter 6 are repetitions of chapter 5 – a combination of chapters 5 and 6 into one single chapter might better combine topics of policy development and respective institutions and stakeholders involved in these developments and discussions. A re-ordering of chapter 5 and 6 to be placed before the large chapter 4 discussing the key components of value chains and food system principles in detail might be considered.

Could you suggest case studies and success stories from countries that were able to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? In particular, the HLPE-FSN would seek contributions on:

evidence-based examples of successful interventions in urban and peri-urban food systems with the principles behind what made the process work;

Vegetables go to School initiative: https://avrdc.org/download/publications/policy-briefs/REV1_VGTS-Policy-Paper_6pagesA4_in-sequence.pdf

Wasike et al., 2018 Linking Farmers, Indigenous Vegetables and Schools to Improve Diets and Nutrition in Busia County, Kenya

efforts made to enhance agency in urban and peri-urban food systems;

Bryan E. and Mekonnen D. (2023). Does small-scale irrigation provide a pathway to women’s empowerment? Lessons from Northern Ghana. Journal of Rural Studies 97 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.12.035

First, thanks very much to FSN/FAO folks for this stimulating paper and for managing these contributions.  My work at The Growing Connection (www.thegrowingconnection.com) and at EcoHuerto (www.ecohuerto.mx) focuses very tightly on innovative, intensive and non-conventional horticulture at the household, school and community levels, thus I am (happily) not directly engaged in the policy-level issues.  We do however have to deal with the consequences of "policy" however, so it is enlightening for me to get this valuable up-date on current thinking. 

I do share the views of several of your contributors' comments (notably Egal and Bowness), specifically as regards actual field level options and activities.

The paper does seem to overlook the huge potential in innovative household-level production, and the potential for direct impact on family nutrition.  There are myriad very low-cost, water-and-space efficient growing tools now available, allowing high yield production in non-traditional areas - I include out own sub-irrigated planter system here as well.  The benefits - particularly for women and youth - are immediate and lasting, re: nutrition and income-generation.

Finally, while I recognize (especially after 30+ years at FAO) that institutional and academic studies will always skew towards elements that can easily be quantified (markets, prices, death, etc.), there is intrinsic value in trying to recognize and calculate the impact and value of less objective aspects of direct D-I-Y type initiatives - for instance taste/flavour, pride, dignity .  These benefits should not be discounted or ignored, especially as they accrue to the most disenfranchised members of our communities. 

Dear FAO colleagues, Congratulations for this first draft on a great and important topic that would help improving food security (though at relatively small scale in some regions), market access, Bio-food among others. Thank you also for the opportunity to provide comments.

While I am not a food systems specialist, I would like to make a few comments from the climate and water side.

It is good to see that a subsection (4.6.4) is dedicated to climate change, an aspect impacting not only agriculture but all the food systems. The 10-lines section indicates the need for climate research for assessing the impacts of climate change and extreme events on all aspects of food systems.  The climate aspect is also mentioned from time to time across the report but given the importance of the dependence of food systems on climate and the effect of climate change, the report seems not giving enough place to these highly impactful pillars. Climate services for agriculture and food security are also missing (excluding a quick mention of climate tool kit) despite their usefulness and necessity for risk reduction, action planning and adaptation. The WMO report on the “State of Climate Services, Agriculture and Food Security” contains information that would help reducing this gap. Several other papers on climate services exists also.

The same remark is valid for water aspect which seems addressed at the same level of other environmental components. However, several questions arise about water availability for UPU agriculture, water related Food safety (risks and possibilities), potential conflictual uses, etc. A dedicated section to Water is al missing.

Dear all,

Conceptualizing this discourse is paramount to the actualization of food security globally both in the urban and peri-urban or rural areas in any nation of the world. The strength which this will galvanize, garnish the food system transformation in this context of urbanization and rural will give the needed desire to food security across the globe. This is why we are advocating for conducive atmosphere and environment that will foster food security especially the states actors for the non-state actors to build on as the foundation in order to thrive successfully.

However, whether urban, peri-urban or rural areas, they can only be classify as one in this context, because of who they deal with ‘human beings’ which are the mechanism to which this can be done, actualize and at the same time the beneficiaries of this food security system in the world, irrespective of population, intellectual capacity differences. In other words, the givers and takers are both humans. I would not want to categorize them into class as urban or peri-urban or rural because of human involve. On a nutshell, the most important point in the discourse is how their needs can be meant and contribution and observation be seen, accepted and taken seriously that will lead to transformation is my utmost delight in this.

For example, the global south majorly rely on the rural farmers for production for survival, this is why I removed the classification method. However, if this is true in the global south, there is high demand and tendency to see the two involve as one and their needs and demands and treated as same for high production for food security except otherwise. Considering infrastructures which enhance food production, and this is basically and practically lacking in the rural that could had strengthened their production if them were there, which the urban has and had not yielded nor increase the food production for food security. Invariably, concentrating development in the urban areas alone has not help these farmers to grow nor increased their products in order to salvage the demand of food security in the world. For example, the national security menace in Nigeria which has affected productions and GDP of Agrifood in the country is mainly rural conflicts between farmers-herdsmen. The attacks are not on the urban areas but rural dwellers, which is just one of the concern issues to mention. In other words, there is need to look inward at the trajectory of development of urban and rural development that will bring inclusiveness, not concentrating on one and leaving the other and allowing the primary need of human to suffer. This has really affected the outcome of production, food security in the urban and the rural. Note, this is not just food security alone but other sectors.

Meanwhile, this misunderstanding of development, without prioritizing the need and those involve have led to rural-urban drift, were farmers have migrated to the cities and thereby becoming redundant to the society because of mis-prioritizing which policy makers of governance has refused to know, understand and taken lessons or learn from. The purpose of transformation is change, when a change occurs or made, definitely there would be transformation in the existence of human in that locality resulting to better living, ways of lives and doing things. And this calls for total change on policy making for policy makers on the principle of governance especially in the global south. That infrastructural needs are not negotiable nor basically the needs of urban dwellers alone also rural dwellers to see even distribution of food system in order to up-scale agricultural productions to meet food security and ensure SDG 1 and 2 is seriously meant.

Secondly, the issue of nutrition in this context most be address from the angle of rural dwellers because of lack of dissemination of information which is as a resulting of the above mention ‘infrastructures’; the means are not there to reach them to take cognizant of malnutrition. And due to this, most are naive of nutrition despite the natural food at their disposal. The principle of dissemination of information which involve infrastructural development needs to be enhance. This will involve both the state actors and non-state actors, which the civil society organizations, private sector, NGOs and others would be a major players of. Dissemination will involved them and bring them to the known, where well-nourished society will evolves in the rural-urban dwellers. Advocacy for urbanization can’t cover rural dwellers nor development or strengthen food security in a nation. It most be joint effort to meet this demand of humans. Knowledge most be strengthened, production mechanism most be upgraded which involves skills enhancement. Research and programmes most be implemented for continuity and sustainability. Enlightening the rural dwellers about their health and food intake most be a priority to the global south. This will bring about good food diet that nourishes the body system for sustainability.

Ultimately, achieving these two glaring issues in the global south food system, these principles have to be considered and taken seriously, the infrastructural development of the rural areas that meet and commensurate with the production mechanism of farmers and policy makers and advocacy.

Secondly, the dissemination of information and advocacy on food nutrition should be made available door to door that centred on rural areas through programmes that will up-scale well nourished society.

Finally, this call is mainly on rural areas strengthening rather than urban areas, due to the level of drifting from rural to urban areas due to infrastructures. This is also applicable to the global north. The input should be centred on the rural areas more than urban to achieve the desire goals and objectives of the food system and SDG. This is sure and affordable way to reduce and minimize rural-urban drift that affects food production and security especially in the global south and have more productions to meet for human consumption.

Thank you.

Esosa.

Please attached find comments. 

Dear Manfred,

Thank you for your post about the work under RUNRES programme (also highlighted at Rural-21) in African countries (circular economy ….). The innovations to transform human waste, banana by prodtcs, etc into useful products is highly appreciated. … Such interventions contributes greately to sustainable development, …. As you highlighted clearly, the design and implementation also require participatory approaches (Participatory Rural Appraisals….), which still is relatively new in many development programmes.

The SNV and Hivos supported Africa Biogas Partnership Programme (ABPP) tried to implement Bio-gas programmes in some East African countries, to transform animal and human waste into production of domestic bio-gas for household and enterprise energy use, thus contributing to reducing de-forestation, saving women’s labour and time, etc) …. The bye-product (bio-slury’’) could also be used as ‘’organic’’ fertilizer input (replacing the high-cost, imported ‘’chemical’’ fertilizer), which can be used to promote food-crop production in urban-agriculture. … Yet adoption of the technology (both by households and enterprises) was so slow after implementation for more than ten years – despite the 40% subsidy by governments and donors, and availability of easier access to credit from financial institutions …..

Our evaluation for SNV (2015) (attached) revealed that this was mainly because no serious efforts was made to make the promotion of the programme ‘’participatory’’. In particular, no serious effort was made on demand creation (as proposed under the IDS-COWASH) especially among households, which for long are used to traditional fule use (typically forest products, which often are freely available….). Also coordination of relevant partners and stakeholders, including those from the public sector, private sector, NGOs, households, etc was so challenging.

I believe this could help facilitate exchange of ideas going forward….

Thanks and Regards

Getaneh

Dear FSN Moderator

I have seen that for some reasons the attachment to my previous comment produces an error message when one tries to open it. Hence i attach the content below directy in this textbox: 

1)      In general, the conceptual diagram makes sense, but I find that there is a mix up of concepts that have been defined in the literature. For example, stability cannot be simply related to the underlying principles of diversity & resilience (see p 10). Food Systems resilience and how to enhance it has been defined and detailed by several studies (e.g. Ingram et al 2023, Nature Food https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00762-5; Tendall et al 2015, Global Food Security http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.08.001; Zurek et al 2022, Annual Review of Environment and Resources https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-050744). Furthermore, the stability of the food system depends on much more than diversity; diversity does play a role, but is far from the only factor determining the stability and resilience of the food system. Also, sustainability encompasses much more than regeneration and regeneration has its own definition that goes beyond sustainability (Luthe et al. 2023. Designing Resilient Regenerative Systems. educational program magazine. ETH Zurich, Systemic Design Labs). I understand that in a conceptual diagram you cannot have every concept detailed, but having these “principles” underlying the “conditions” is, in my opinion, too much of a simplification of these concepts that are all in themselves complex.

2)      I also think that the concept of circularity (or circular bioeconomy) should be presented in the conceptual diagram because the “metabolic rift” that exists now due to urbanization needs to be overcome. Currently, the a “mining” of the rural area (more specifically its soil nutrients, but also its human capital) is supporting the urban population with a minimal return. Hence, a circularity across the Rural-Urban nexus has to be established in order to reduce the current linear resource flow from the Rural to the Urban systems; here the peri-urban area plays a crucial role. In section 4.6.3. this issue is addressed, but I think much more could be elaborated on how to establish a circular bioeconomy within the urban and peri-urban food systems. In that sense, I would like to draw your attention to two articles written for a broader public on this issue and potential solutions:

a) https://www.rural21.com/english/archive/2021/03/detail/article/rethinking-the-rural-urban-relationship-based-on-nutrient-recycling.html

b) https://www.rural21.com/english/current-issue/detail/article/from-innovation-to-upscaling-circular-economy-in-the-rural-urban-nexus.html

More info can also be found on the following website: https://runres.ethz.ch/

And also here some illustrative videos can be found: a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfpABnbspg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N030skkaLTE

3)      If deemed of interest, I would be willing to provide text and info to outline a case study (in a box or other format) on how to improve the resilience of the urban and peri-urban food system through innovation for establishing a circular bioeconomy. I would rely on the references provided above and would probably focus on one particular innovation that is illustrated in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSK72hi66PI

If this is of interest do not hesitat to contact me: [email protected]